Moderated debates anyone?

Possibly, though I'm not sure how you're going to get Npet to debate seeing as how he's been banned for a while now.

We would also need some mechinism for choosing just which members would debate and perhaps a second tagalong thread for folks who had a question about a specific comment made about the debaters. And also perhaps a time limit on how long the debate could rage on for.

 

And here is something that I have been thinking about...
like we did in High School

Switch sides.

Have a debate in which we switch sides. If you are a C... argue from an A veiwpoint... etc...

KJVOs debate from the MVs viewpoint..

This way people may be able to learn more about how their opponents think.

 

Good idea, Tim. I think it is an excellent logic exercise to take a position in debate that is the opposite of what you actually think. I always enjoyed that.

 

How about a separate forum area for the debates. There could be structure like an opening statement by each, limited to x number of words. Then two rounds of debate/rebuttal, also limited. Then a concluding statement. Rules like no ad hominems would be in place. And the moderator would need to be even handed and act as an impartial traffic cop.

 

I think there should be a forum set up for exactly this purpose.

There is another board that uses a great setup where two people want to debate a topic. They lay down their sides and state what they will prove. They lay out the rules, how many rounds, how much time between rounds, etc. They already have in place the structure like Magnetic Poles was talking about.

It's all heavily moderated. Everything goes to the Mod before it's posted to make use it com-forums to the rules etc.

Each topic is locked so no one else can post in it, but there is what they call a Peanut Gallery for others to offer their views and points.

Should this idea get off the ground, I will be glad to give the Moderator's/Admin a link to the site for reference. Sadly, even though they have a great idea for debating topics, there is a lot of anti-Christian stuff there so I don't want to post the link.

I am certainly behind all this for several reasons.

1. A good solid debate can help teach people without the added interference from the "hot headed" people.

2. It's an orderly way to discuss hot topics.

3. It will keep the threads from being posted over and over and over and over and over and over ... well you get the point.. (There is another way to stop this also by using stickys better)


Jamie

 

I like Jamie's idea. These debate topics can get so ugly...it's just not edifying.

love,

Sopranette

 

This was attempted a few years back. A forum called "One on One Debates" was created, and it had all the rules suggested above (with the exception of switching sides). As I recall there may have been one or two debates and that was it.

 

Sorry to hear about that... I didn't know one had been tried. It's ashame that the people that jump into each adn every topic that has already been beaten to death can't step up and put their opinion in a single one on one thread.

Maybe there are different users here now that would use it? Maybe people, after all the same threads being posted will see that this idea is a good one and would use it?

Oh well, it was a good idea...

Jamie

 

The debates on this forum are supposed to be moderated, no?

 

Moderated after they are posted.. The way it's set up now, it generaly works.

In a One on One debate, there are rules set for lenght of post, where references can be pulled from, and a time limit on responses. In these aspects, the Moderator only makes sure the "rules" set up between both parties before the debate are followed. The moderator reviews what the people submit, if it passes the rules, then it's posted, if not, then it's send back to the user for revisions. In a thread where a debate is going on, there is no editing, or changes allowed after it's posted.

Jamie

 

It is fine just the way it is. I have seen every thread that got out of line too far, closed by Mods.
I do not think I would participate in a debate where my post had to go through a mod and then I could post it. I like fast responses to questions and give fast answers to questions.

It is not my board and I am just giving my feelings about the matter. Most of those who do not like the so called heated debates, never enter them anyway. I got enough sense to know if I want to get envolved in a thread or not. I doubt if any of us talk the way we question and answer on here, but it brings forth knowledge IMO, and that is why I am on here to start with. If it turns in to a "honey its your turn", I doubt if I will participate. Call me what you want, but I like the debates just the way they are.

BBob, :thumbs:

 

Would be interested in reading it.

 

But that's not the issue at all, Bob. Sure, we have open discussions, but this would be adding structured debates between two sides and two debaters. It wouldn't replace what we have, but augment it. I still say it's a fine idea.

 

I like Bro. Bob's idea here----two posters wish to debate between themselves---they in turn notify the moderators of that forum of their challenge and topic. The moderators/administrators act as usual toward each response. The moderators can put a notice at the top of the first page that debate is between said debating posters(can be more than two debators)---and that all other posts will be deleted if they are not the OPer's or debators---of course, the threads will be open for all to read.

 

I would have participated, but no one at the time wanted to go one on one with me.

 

Do the moderators moderate in real time now? How many moderators would be willing to volunteer their time to do this? I think it could be a good thing.

 

Amen to that reformedbeliever, they have families same as everyone and I am sure they moderate at their own time without monetary reimbursement.

blackbird told us that if someone wanted to go one on one they would supply a forum for it. So that should answer it.

BBob,